Yigal Chripun Wrote:
> Jb wrote:
> > "Craig Black" <cblack@ara.com> wrote in message
> > news:fp2cu3$hcc$1@digitalmars.com...
> >
> >> Yep. That's generally a good approach to science. However, considering
> >> how much ground has been covered by science in recent times, I have the
> >> hope that ultimately science will be able to answer philosophical
> >> questions too. Being a curious person, it would be nice to have a
> >> definitive answer to the big questions.
> >>
> >
> > As soon as science provides an answer it stops being a philosophical
> > question. ;-)
> >
> > But tbh, you just have to accept that some stuff is and always will be
> > beyond our understanding.
> >
> > Is the universe infinate or finite?
> >
> > Either answer is utterly perplexing and uncomprehendable. Anyone who claims
> > otherwise doesnt understand the question.
> >
> > Why does anything exist at all? Why is there not just nothing?
> >
> > Again what possible answer could there be that makes any sense to a human?
> >
> >
> >
> well, actually the universe is finite. there is a lot of evidence that
> our universe is expanding (big bang and all) and thus it must be finite
> (according to math).
> you can think of it this way: say we all are 2D living on the surface of
> a balloon that keeps expanding. in such a surface the geometry tells us
> that although there is no edge/border to the surface the area of it is
> finite.
> our universe behaves exactly the same, only the "surface" of it is 3D.
>
> -- Yigal
>
Any infinite form can expand too. Add a few digits to the end of Pi.
Did nobody understand Limits Theorum?

Craig Black wrote:
> "Gregor Richards" <Richards@codu.org> wrote in message
> news:fp2e2k$jvj$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Craig Black wrote:
>>> I apologize for the inappropriate post, but I read this material last
>>> night and am still buzzing about it. I just have to share it. I
>>> personally am an agnostic, so not trying to preach anything, but I
>>> thought this was very interesting. I didn't realize that modern science
>>> has such a solid theory about consciousness. Namely, that there is only
>>> one conscious mind in the universe, and that matter is the result of
>>> observations of that mind. At the subatomic level, there are only
>>> possibilities that require a mind to bring into actual reality. And that
>>> mind is not Many but One. The universe essentially consists of a single
>>> Indivisible Mind from which matter emmanates.
>>>
>>> Are these the ramblings of a deluded philosopher or religious cult?
>>> Nope. The conclusions that result due to observations and discoveries
>>> made by Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and Niels Bohr, all
>>> pioneers of quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>> http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html
>>>
>>> -Craig
>>>
>>>
>> I've seen this sort of argument a thousand times, and as per usual, it's
>> veiled in extremely long and complicated prose which completely ignores
>> one fact: There is a competing theory of quantum waveform collapse that
>> does not require one to hold the ridiculous belief that certain
>> complicated chemical reactions are endowed with the magical property of
>> consciousness. Better yet, this theory is extremely simple, and Occam's
>> Razor always likes simplicity. It is the many-worlds hypothesis.
>>
>> Essentially, the hypothesis this page (and so many others) professes as
>> proven truth is that the consciousness of a being causes the quantum state
>> of things that being observes to collapse. It requires that you believe
>> that certain beings are endowed with this mystical power of causing
>> collapse, which is contrary to hundreds of years of science suggesting
>> that humans (and all other forms of life) are physical/chemical/electrical
>> reactions (albeit extremely complicated ones).
>>
>> One property of quantum mechanics that has been observed and proven fairly
>> well is quantum entanglement. Put simply, one quantum state can be defined
>> with another quantum state as variables. A simplified example:
>>
>> 1) You have a cat in a box. For simplicity, we will say that it has a 50%
>> probability of being alive and a 50% probability of being dead.
>>
>> 2) You shoot the box. The bullet has a 99.99% probability of passing
>> through the box and the cat (killing it), and a 0.01% probability of
>> jumping spontaneously and missing the cat entirely.
>>
>> 3) Because the bullet affects the cat, the quantum state of the cat is now
>> defined with the bullet as a variable:
>> The 50% chance that the cat was alive now becomes a 49.995% chance
>> that the cat is dead and a 0.005% chance the cat is dead.
>> The 50% chance that the cat was dead is still a 50% chance that the
>> cat is dead (no use shooting a dead cat :P )
>> So: The cat's state is now 99.995% dead and 0.005% alive.
>>
>> 4) You observe the cat.
>>
>> By the theory on this page (observation causes waveform collapse), your
>> observing the cat causes it to resolve to either 100% dead or 100% alive,
>> with a 0.005% probability and 99.995% probability respectively. However,
>> there is no explanation for why you, the observer, are not entangled just
>> like everything else is.
>>
>> Here's a simple explanation: You ARE entangled. Your state becomes 99.995%
>> the-cat-is-dead, 0.005% the-cat-is-alive. What does this mean? This means
>> that you exist simultaneously in two worlds, one with a living cat and one
>> with a dead cat. Your consciousness is entangled, and so becomes divided
>> into two universes (in a matter of speaking). What do you observe? Well,
>> you can't simultaneously observer both universes (they are two separate
>> streams of consciousness), so it appears that the state has collapsed. In
>> reality, you've just become part of it.
>>
>> This is called the many-worlds hypothesis. It makes sense and doesn't
>> require a philosophical definition of "observer". It's compatible with the
>> well-supported notion that humans are NOT special, merely complicated.
>> And, sci-fi loves it :P
>>
>> - Gregor Richards
>
> Yeah. I have just been on Wikipedia reading about this. The article I read
> originally incorrectly promoted the "Continuous infinity of minds"
> hypothesis as a conclusion. It's hard because I can barely follow the logic
> of the that hypothesis, let alone try to digest this one too. It's very
> interesting that both of these hypothetical ideas have huge and quite
> strange implications. Either you believe in God or you believe in parallel
> universes. It's nuts.
There was a wonderful article in New Scientist a few years ago called "Anything
Goes" by Marcus Chown which 'proves' that there are an infinite number of universes:
"This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was
designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes—a
"multiverse". "
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg15821375.100-anything-goes.html
I love the way he dismisses the first option as absurd, regardless of the
consequences which follow when choosing the second option.

Daniel Lewis wrote:
> Yigal Chripun Wrote:
>
>
>> Jb wrote:
>>
>>> "Craig Black" <cblack@ara.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fp2cu3$hcc$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yep. That's generally a good approach to science. However, considering
>>>> how much ground has been covered by science in recent times, I have the
>>>> hope that ultimately science will be able to answer philosophical
>>>> questions too. Being a curious person, it would be nice to have a
>>>> definitive answer to the big questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As soon as science provides an answer it stops being a philosophical
>>> question. ;-)
>>>
>>> But tbh, you just have to accept that some stuff is and always will be
>>> beyond our understanding.
>>>
>>> Is the universe infinate or finite?
>>>
>>> Either answer is utterly perplexing and uncomprehendable. Anyone who claims
>>> otherwise doesnt understand the question.
>>>
>>> Why does anything exist at all? Why is there not just nothing?
>>>
>>> Again what possible answer could there be that makes any sense to a human?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> well, actually the universe is finite. there is a lot of evidence that
>> our universe is expanding (big bang and all) and thus it must be finite
>> (according to math).
>> you can think of it this way: say we all are 2D living on the surface of
>> a balloon that keeps expanding. in such a surface the geometry tells us
>> that although there is no edge/border to the surface the area of it is
>> finite.
>> our universe behaves exactly the same, only the "surface" of it is 3D.
>>
>> -- Yigal
>>
>>
>
> Any infinite form can expand too. Add a few digits to the end of Pi.
>
> Did nobody understand Limits Theorum?
>
You are wrong in you're reasoning. from wikipedia:
"[Pi] represents the ratio of any circle
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle>'s circumference to its diameter in
Euclidean geometry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry>,
which is the same as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its
radius."
the number Pi is just a representation of said ratio, and any decimal
representation of it is _not_ Pi itself but an approximation of it.
3.14 is not Pi but a number that is close to Pi, that's all.

Jb wrote:
> "boyd" <gaboonviper@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:op.t6ji59yp1auoiy@company-3328781.home.nl...
>
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:06:52 +0100, Bill Baxter
>> <dnewsgroup@billbaxter.com> wrote:
>>
>> Actually infinite means exactly that it can't expand. That's the whole
>> point of infinity. It's not a number, not a real one anyway, because a
>> real number is always smaller than infinite.
>>
>
> Infinity is a set.
>
> if x = the set -inf .. +inf
>
> the set 2*x is infinite, as is 4*x.
>
> 4*x is an exactly like 2*x just spread out by a factor of 2.
>
> Infinity can expand because it is infinte. It just becomes a different but
> still infinite set of numbers.
>
>
>
Nope.
as you said yourself we are talking sets here. in order to compare
infinite sets you cannot just count the elements (that would take forever).
math uses cardinality for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
basically, |{0, 1, 2, ...}| = |{0, 2, 4, ...}|
that maybe doesn't sound right, but both sets do in fact have the same
cardinality (there's a trivial function that maps each member of the
left set to a unique member of the right set).
so in a matter of speaking both sets have the same amount of elements,
thus you didn't expand infinity.
--Yigal

> "This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was
> designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of
> universes—a "multiverse". "
>
> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg15821375.100-anything-goes.html
>
>
> I love the way he dismisses the first option as absurd, regardless of
> the consequences which follow when choosing the second option.
That's why finding God based only on science IMHO is not possible. As
Yigal Chripun already mentioned science is based on set of assumptions
which don't allow scientists to explore some of possible explanations. I
don't think it is so bad for scientists, as you never knows before what
you will find just beyond the corner: another physical law or God
himself. But what is good for scientists is not necessary so good for
human being. If scientists are missing something very important (as God
:-) ), a lot of people can be misleaded by believing in scientists
theories...
Another drawback of these basic scientists assumptions is that they can
lead scientists to accept very strange and improbable theories as
truth. So in some sense it cause scientists to accept theories which are
more complicated than necessary, what is kind of paradox, taking
Ockham's razor principle into account. In article mentioned above author
noticed that universe seems to be precisely fine-tuned for humans to
live, but it led author to conclusion that there are infinite number of
different universes. In such a high level abstract, unverifiable
thinking, the existence of God should be taken into consideration on the
same level as such theories. The more: there IS some evidence of God's
existence. And this IS fully scientific evidence. It's not evidence of
kind which physicians and mathematicians would look for, as you can not
reproduce in controlled environment your experiment to prove something.
But it is evidence which will be gladly accepted by historicians. I mean
here simplest evidence available: testimony of different people
experiencing God in their life.
If anyone wants to know my exact opinion on that matter you can contact
me through my web page: www.zapytajmnie.com
BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)

"Don Clugston" <dac@nospam.com.au> wrote in message
news:fp3hvu$88p$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> There was a wonderful article in New Scientist a few years ago called
> "Anything Goes" by Marcus Chown which 'proves' that there are an infinite
> number of universes:
I read New Scientist pretty regulary, and tbh the amount of weird and
incomprehensible theories of physics seems never ending. A recent one was
predicting that future affects past, that causality works backwards as well
as forwards. 17 dimensions, multiverses, time doesnt exist, boltzman brains
(that was really weird) ect...
I wonder if our ability to test theorys at the cutting edge, at the
subatomic level, is getting so limited that we might just be stuck with an
endless stream crackpot incomprehensible theorys for a fairly long time.

Aarti_pl wrote:
>> "This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe
>> was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude
>> of universes—a "multiverse". "
>>
>> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg15821375.100-anything-goes.html
>>
>>
>> I love the way he dismisses the first option as absurd, regardless of
>> the consequences which follow when choosing the second option.
>
> That's why finding God based only on science IMHO is not possible. As
> Yigal Chripun already mentioned science is based on set of assumptions
> which don't allow scientists to explore some of possible explanations.
> I don't think it is so bad for scientists, as you never knows before
> what you will find just beyond the corner: another physical law or God
> himself. But what is good for scientists is not necessary so good for
> human being. If scientists are missing something very important (as
> God :-) ), a lot of people can be misleaded by believing in scientists
> theories...
>
> Another drawback of these basic scientists assumptions is that they
> can lead scientists to accept very strange and improbable theories as
> truth. So in some sense it cause scientists to accept theories which
> are more complicated than necessary, what is kind of paradox, taking
> Ockham's razor principle into account. In article mentioned above
> author noticed that universe seems to be precisely fine-tuned for
> humans to live, but it led author to conclusion that there are
> infinite number of different universes. In such a high level abstract,
> unverifiable thinking, the existence of God should be taken into
> consideration on the same level as such theories. The more: there IS
> some evidence of God's existence. And this IS fully scientific
> evidence. It's not evidence of kind which physicians and
> mathematicians would look for, as you can not reproduce in controlled
> environment your experiment to prove something. But it is evidence
> which will be gladly accepted by historicians. I mean here simplest
> evidence available: testimony of different people experiencing God in
> their life.
>
> If anyone wants to know my exact opinion on that matter you can
> contact me through my web page: www.zapytajmnie.com
>
> BR
> Marcin Kuszczak
> (aarti_pl)
science operates based on a set of axioms
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) which basically means that science
is limited in what it can deduce. what you imply with the word
"assumptions" is basically that if the assumption is wrong everything
derived from it would also be wrong, so all our knowledge is just a pile
of assumptions that can be wrong. that's different from using axioms as
your starting point. There are cases where a scientific theory is based
on an assumption but science tries very hard to minimize this as much as
possible and to remain with ideally no assumptions at all. that's what
ocham's razor is all about.
regarding god, it is true that science doesn't/shouldn't deal with the
question of god, as a belief system relies on people accepting it
_without_ any formal proof. if you provide such a proof that god exists
(or not) you make the answer a fact, and it stops being a belief.
that said (and without insulting anyone religion/faith/belief system),
my opinion is as follows:
1) the question of god cannot be answered by science so it's irrelevant
and my view of the world does not depend on its answer.
2) I can reason logically and show that logically god doesn't exist but
as i said, god isn't supposed to be logical or scientific so even if i
could prove that he/she/it didn't exist it's irrelevant to my view of
the world as stated in (1).
if god is almighty and can do anything, he can create a rock no one can
lift, so he either cannot lift it or he can't create it, both ways show
a logical contradiction to the idea of an all powerful god.
--Yigal (just another atheist..)

Yigal Chripun pisze:
> Aarti_pl wrote:
>>> "This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe
>>> was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude
>>> of universes—a "multiverse". "
>>>
>>> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg15821375.100-anything-goes.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I love the way he dismisses the first option as absurd, regardless of
>>> the consequences which follow when choosing the second option.
>> That's why finding God based only on science IMHO is not possible. As
>> Yigal Chripun already mentioned science is based on set of assumptions
>> which don't allow scientists to explore some of possible explanations.
>> I don't think it is so bad for scientists, as you never knows before
>> what you will find just beyond the corner: another physical law or God
>> himself. But what is good for scientists is not necessary so good for
>> human being. If scientists are missing something very important (as
>> God :-) ), a lot of people can be misleaded by believing in scientists
>> theories...
>>
>> Another drawback of these basic scientists assumptions is that they
>> can lead scientists to accept very strange and improbable theories as
>> truth. So in some sense it cause scientists to accept theories which
>> are more complicated than necessary, what is kind of paradox, taking
>> Ockham's razor principle into account. In article mentioned above
>> author noticed that universe seems to be precisely fine-tuned for
>> humans to live, but it led author to conclusion that there are
>> infinite number of different universes. In such a high level abstract,
>> unverifiable thinking, the existence of God should be taken into
>> consideration on the same level as such theories. The more: there IS
>> some evidence of God's existence. And this IS fully scientific
>> evidence. It's not evidence of kind which physicians and
>> mathematicians would look for, as you can not reproduce in controlled
>> environment your experiment to prove something. But it is evidence
>> which will be gladly accepted by historicians. I mean here simplest
>> evidence available: testimony of different people experiencing God in
>> their life.
>>
>> If anyone wants to know my exact opinion on that matter you can
>> contact me through my web page: www.zapytajmnie.com
>>
>> BR
>> Marcin Kuszczak
>> (aarti_pl)
> science operates based on a set of axioms
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) which basically means that science
> is limited in what it can deduce. what you imply with the word
> "assumptions" is basically that if the assumption is wrong everything
> derived from it would also be wrong, so all our knowledge is just a pile
> of assumptions that can be wrong. that's different from using axioms as
> your starting point. There are cases where a scientific theory is based
> on an assumption but science tries very hard to minimize this as much as
> possible and to remain with ideally no assumptions at all. that's what
> ocham's razor is all about.
I did not imply anything with word assumption. I just couldn't remind
the word 'axiom' and used 'assumption' as replacement. It was probably
not very perfect match :-). I completely agree with you about scope of
scientific method: it is limited with basic axioms.
But unfortunately I can also observe that many scientists have specific
"assumptions" about existence of God. So they are not very objective in
their statements.
> regarding god, it is true that science doesn't/shouldn't deal with the
> question of god, as a belief system relies on people accepting it
> _without_ any formal proof. if you provide such a proof that god exists
> (or not) you make the answer a fact, and it stops being a belief.
> that said (and without insulting anyone religion/faith/belief system),
> my opinion is as follows:
> 1) the question of god cannot be answered by science so it's irrelevant
> and my view of the world does not depend on its answer.
...yup...
> 2) I can reason logically and show that logically god doesn't exist but
> as i said, god isn't supposed to be logical or scientific so even if i
> could prove that he/she/it didn't exist it's irrelevant to my view of
> the world as stated in (1).
>
> if god is almighty and can do anything, he can create a rock no one can
> lift, so he either cannot lift it or he can't create it, both ways show
> a logical contradiction to the idea of an all powerful god.
>
This is just logical antinomy. You can prepare lot of similar statements
e.g.:
1. If god is almighty he could create quadratic circle.
2. If god is almighty he can exists and not exists in the same time.
But please notice that no one ever claimed that because God is almighty
he should be internally inconsistent. or he can do things that are
logically not possible... :-)
> --Yigal (just another atheist..)
>
>
BR
Marcin Kuszczak
(aarti_pl)

Daniel Lewis wrote:
> *cough* Right. On one of those worlds, I'm dating three hot supermodels and my sister is the president of the United States. *cough*
>
Even better example.
On one of those worlds GWB was reelected.
Clearly, this demonstrates the impossibility of the Many Worlds model. No parallel universe could conceivably be so moronic.
--downs

"Daniel Lewis" <murpsoft@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fp2se7$1is4$1@digitalmars.com...
>> > Namely, that there is only one conscious mind in the
>> > universe, and that matter is the result of observations of that mind.
>> > At
>> > the subatomic level, there are only possibilities that require a mind
>> > to
>> > bring into actual reality. And that mind is not Many but One.
>
> No offense, but that's a load of shit. The human mind is roughly the
> equivalent to pudding or a potato. It just happens to be configured in
> such a way that it's electrical signals form a massively parallel signal
> infrastructure. Hence why we continue to expend about 10% of our body
> energy supporting our pudding.
>
>> > The universe
>> > essentially consists of a single Indivisible Mind from which matter
>> > emmanates.
>
> Hippy.
>
> More correctly, if you take two magnets and pull them apart, at what
> distance does the magnetic force completely stop; or is it a function of
> limits? Likewise for gravity? Can you therefore consider that when I
> move my finger, then entire universe feels both electrical and
> gravitational change? I would argue that that is how one might
> interpolate that everything is connected.
>
You can call people names all day long, but I am simply an agnostic with an
open mind mind. This, I find is something that is exceptionally rare and
something that I am proud to be. Some people get off on being mean to
people with different opinions. If you would have read a couple more of my
posts would have noticed that I've changed my mind on the matter you
asshole.
It's people like you that makes learning so damn annoying.
-Craig